andrewducker (
andrewducker) wrote2009-07-10 02:08 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Belief - repost
Question three was borked. Rewritten to actually cover all the bases, and not be internally contradictory. Apologies to the 7 people who already filled it in!
[Poll #1427776]
[Poll #1427776]
no subject
no subject
But as long as you're incorrectly conceding the rhetorical possibility of "believe in a negative", I'd call that an atheist.
"What do you call someone who likes football?"
"A fan"
"But what if they like football AND really like Man U"
"They're a fan."
"But those things are different!"
no subject
I cannot disprove the existence of God, and I would find it insulting and inapprorpriate for someone to think I was insisting that God definitely did not exist. And so I do not use the word atheist about myself, because that it how people seem to use it.
no subject
I can understand why it would not be scientifically verifiable, but in a world where it's acceptable to claim existence of a being based on the evidence of select texts, I don't see why it should be insulting to strongly argue that God definitely doesn't exist.
That is to say, I cannot prove my assertion that God doesn't exist, but I am more than happy to go toe to toe with those who are willing to insist that he does and to argue with equal fervour.
no subject
I'm happy to argue that there's no reason to think God exists, and that assertions that he does are without grounds. Just not to assert that God is impossible.